supreme court is taking the prop 8 case, the perry case, as well as the doma case. and, you know, look, when this case was filed almost four years ago, the prop 8 case, we made the case in court, ted olson and david boyce, that in this country we don't deny our citizens a fundamental right, and the supreme court has called marriage a fundamental right no less than 14 times in the history of this country, and i'm optimistic that once the court does hear this case and the doma case, they're going to come down on the side of freedom, liberty, and equality just as they have so many times in our nation's past. >> and equal protection of the laws. elizabeth, thank you for coming on. very haven't seen you in a while. equal protection of the laws. liberty is a pretty profound notion in this country. >> it is. >> pursuit of happiness is in our declaration. why not? >> here is the thing, if you are gay and alive in our time in america, we're living in a kind of a policy and civil rights renaissance. we have seen extraordinary leadership from other parts of government already. don't we judge, chr

better. it is an incredible day the supreme court is taking the prop 8 case as well as the doma case. when this case was filed almost four years ago, the prop 8 case, we made the case in court. in this country, we don't deny our citizens a fundamental right. the supreme court has called marriage a fundamental right no less than 14 times in this country. i'm optimistic once the court hears this doma case they will come down on freedom and libberality as they have. >> elizabeth, i haven't seen you in a while. equal protection of the laws. >> if you are gay and alive in our time in america, we're living in a kind of a policy and civil rights renaissance. we have seen extraordinary leadership from other parts of government already. we -- don't we judge presidents by whether they stand tube the moment of history in which they live. we have seen president obama step up to this issue, gay marriage. >> "don't ask, don't tell" now saying he won't enforce doma. >> our military has stepped up. >> even the marines are doing a great job. >> even the marines are. now, we have to see, will the supr

the supreme court is taking the prop 8 case, the perry case, as well as the doma case. and, you know, look, when this case was filed almost four years ago, the prop 8 case, we made the case in court that in this country we don't deny our citizens a fundamental right, and the supreme court has called marriage a fundamental right no less than 14 times in the history of this country, and i'm optimistic that once the court does hear this case and the doma case, they're going to come down on the side of freedom, liberty, and equality just as they have so many times in our nation's past. >> and equal protection of the laws. elizabeth, thank you for coming on. equal protection of the laws. liberty is a pretty profound notion in this country. >> it is. >> pursuit of happiness is our declaration. why not? >> here is the thing, if you are gay and alive in our time in america, we're living in a kind of a policy and civil rights renaissance. we have seen extraordinary leadership from other parts of government already. don't we judge, chris, presidents by whether they stand up to the moment

found doma unconstitution and it was just a matter of train before edie and the freight train that is the movement woot encounter anthony, aka anthony kennedy. when the supremes get down to assessing doma, we can expect the conservatives to defend doma and the liberals to strike it down. the comp significance of the majority will be determined by the votes of chief justice roberts who has shown he's willing to leave the conservatives if he feels the court's legacy is in peril and kenne kennedy. he wrote the constitution prohibits laws singling out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status. it appears doma will get tossed in the dust bin of history. the courts other gay rights case comes from california which gave gays the right to marry and then with proposition 8 took it away. taking away an existing right because of animus was prohibited by the court in a '96 decision authored by justice kennedy. but where the doma case asks can the federal government discriminate against married couple, the prop 8 case asks can states bar gays from marrying. kennedy

. many of us thought this is exactly what's going to happen with the prop 8 case. the doma case is slightly different. but many of us thought the prop 8 case it's going to go back. it's going to be legal in california but nowhere else and the court is going to wait another ten years. >> so what are the implications -- the differing implications of how they could rule? what different parts of the gay marriage question e could they resolve? >> the doma case is a much more easy case. all it does is to return congress to its original position of following whatever states say the definition of marriage are. so it was crafted because it's a movement. they tend to be pro-state's rights and the liberals are pro-gay so arguing towards the middle, these are justice kennedy's favorite things. that's clearly a fifth vote for this case. we assume. so i think everyone imagined everyone since appellate court struck it down, that it leads to the supreme court to review the case. everyone thought they would take the case. i think they are going to do the right thing and strike it down. the other ca

marriage act. doma is known as the 1996 law enacted by president clinton that ordered the federal government to recognize only marriages between a man and woman. in the intervene years since clinton passed the law, american attitudes have shifted. 2012 set to go down as one of the most successful years ever for the gay right movement. marriage equality advocates won at the ballot box when maine, maryland and washington voted to join six other states and district of columbia in permitting same-sex marriage and the year that president obama became the first sitting president to publicly endorse gay marriage, a powerful sign that once politically sensitive issue has moved firmly into the mainstream. frank, you have, i thought, an incredibly moving and compelling op-ed in "the new york times" talking about doma and the thing that struck me is how far the country has come in a relatively short period of time. just because i was interested in comparing it to interracial marriage, in 1958, gallup showed that 4% of the country approved of interracial marriage. by the late 1960s it was 20%

got doma, the defense of marriage act as well as proposition 8 to consider. if we first talk about doma, if it is struck down, what does that mean nationally? >> well, it means only that if you live in a state that permits same-sex marriage and you are in a same-sex marriage, that the federal government will recognize your marriage. doma does not require states to do anything. it doesn't require anybody to do anything. but right now it prevents the federal government from granting recognition to same-sex marriages like, for instance, in new york. if that is struck down, the people who are married in states that allow it will get full federal recognition. >> which is over more than 1,000 federal benefits that go along with that. >> it's very important. it would be very significant. >> jonathan, we talk about prop 8 in california. if that is struck down, does that mean marriage equality then for all intents and purposes is legal in all states? does what happens in california then change the relevance for 49 other states? >> well, this all gets to how the supreme court rules. you know

supreme court has choices of cases it could take here. it decided to take these two, doma and proposition 8. why do you think they took these and not others? >> you know, after this election, this issue is so ripe for the supreme court the jurisdictions are so split in their laws, many states recognizing same-sex marriage and performing same-sex marriages. some states not recognizing them. this is the perfect scenario for the supreme court to step in and ultimately make a ruling. there are over 1,000 cases, joe, in which federal laws are impacted by marital status. the time has come. it's ripe. prop 8 was on the doorstep for the supreme court. here we go. >> avery, we were trading e-mails a little bit a while ago. one of the questions i asked you was whether the supreme court essentially gave itself an emergency escape hatch with one of the cases it chose. can you talk about that? >> late yesterday, as you know, joe, the supreme court amended its grant of review when it said, we want to know about the issue of standing. meaning does the person involved in the challenge have th

really from both sides of this. >> particularly over the doma case. gay marriage advocates who want the defense of marriage act struck down say doma creates a gay-only exception to federal recognition of state licensed marriages. and we believe that the federal government should stop discriminating against same sex couples legally married by their states. but defender of traditional marriage between one man and one woman say, quote: since president bill clinton signed doma into law, 30 states have followed suit by incorporating the definition of marriage into their constitutions. voters in these states will not accept an activist court redefining our most fundamental social institution. arguments on both cases are likely to be in march and rules likely in june. shep? >> shepard: we got another announcement from the supreme court today. it's going to take up another case that really could effect what we all pay for prescription drugs. >> right. this is about the battle between more expensive brand name drugs and cheaper generic drugs. some of the brand name companies pay the generic drug

debate about doma, about striking doma from the platform. those who fought for it tended to be much older in that demographic. the younger the republican, the younger the conservative, the younger the libertarian, the chances are they're either agnostic or their fully -- >> you're getting into it much faster than i want to. we're going to go to blows. here it is, the language on gay marriage. it's not just against doma. quote, we reaffirm our support for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. we aflawed the citizens of the majority of states which have enshrined in their constitutions the traditional concept of marriage, and we support the campaigns under way in several other states to do so. and take a look at what the republican candidate mitt romney said back in may about his opposition to not only gay marriage, but even civil unions. let's watch. >> i think people have differing views on marriage, and i respect people's different views. when i served as governor of my state, this issue arose, same-sex marriage and civil union. i point

government's defense of marriage act, known as doma. the second involves a challenge to california's proposition 8, a voter-approved ballot initiative that outlawed same-sex marriage. a federal appeals court struck down the law earlier this year. the court's decision to weigh in on marriage equality came as same-sex couples began marrying in washington state yesterday. on election day voters there and in maryland and in maine made history when they became the first states to approve same-sex marriage at the ballot box. joining us now to discuss is steve, chair of the gay and lesbian victory fund. great to have you. >> nice to be here, alex. s. >> so a lot of tea leaf read and arm chair prognostication around this. i am by no means a supreme court expert, but when i saw that they were taking up both doma and prop 8, question as to whether they would take up inform i them at all, it seemed to me a signal that the court was ready to make a big decision, and i just cannot imagine, especially when you have conservatives like john roberts, who maybe sort of a fiscal conservative and vote i

case. the doma case is slightly different for reasons we can go into. but many of us thought the prop 8 case it's going to go back. it's going to be legal in california but nowhere else and the court is going to wait another ten years. then wash out the outliers like intraracial marriage did. >> so what are the implications -- the differing implications of how they could rule? what different parts of the gay marriage question could they resolve? >> the doma case is a much more easy case. it's a much more challenge. all it does is to return congress to its original position of following whatever states' definition of marriage are. in some ways it was crafted, it's a movement. they tend to be pro-state's rights and the liberals are pro gay, so essentially toward the middle, these are justice kennedy's favorite things. that's clearly a fifth vote for this case. we assume. so i think everyone imagined everyone since appellate court struck down the congressional statute that invariably leads the supreme court to review the case. everyone thought they would take the case. i think they

case. probably the most serious standing questions are on the doma case and windsor case. the cases being defended by a group of republican members and it is not clear that they have actual standing to bring the case. so if the court says you don't have standing, then the e lower court would prevail and windsor would prevail. >> how would the court's ruling affect marriage equality? >> it couldn't be more important. that case came for african-americans in 1954, i believe. this could be that moment. we're all hoping that it is. this country is an imperfect union by mere fact that we have not recognized the right of people in love to be married. there are 120,000 couples in this country that are directly -- have their interests directly at stake. but it's not just them. the question is will this country embrace this fundamental human right? and i don't believe kennedy wants to be on the wrong side of history on that. >> this is the latest challenge to the constitutionty. is doma doomed? >> i think it is. there are four district courts saying it violated the rights of gay and lesbian c

different ones to consider choosing and two prop 8 ones. they have one doma and one prop 8. >> what's fascinating, this is a court that has avoided this issue. it's been pathological. everyone in lawrence v. texas, the opinion was distorted in my ways because of a clear effort not to say anything that would have baring on the same-sex marriage issue. suddenly, they take two issues with the broadest possible front. the question is, what are they going to do and whether they are going to reach an impasse. if there's an impasse, sometimes they go for narrow decisions. there are outs in these cases. both cases have standing issues. questions of whether these are the party that is have a right to bring this type of challenge. the standing issues are particularly prominent in the doma case. the proposition 8 case probably offers the broadest scope for a major ruling. what people, many people hope, is that that would be the case where the court says this violates equal protection. you can't deny these people the same rights of marriage. if it were to do that, then it would effectively set as

"defense of marriage act" or doma that deprives legally married gay couples of federal benefits that are available to heterosexual couples. same-sex marriage is legal or will be soon in nine states and the district of columbia. but 31 states have amended their constitutions to bar gay unions. here with us to explain today's development, and where it could lead, is marcia coyle of "the national law journal." welcome back, marcia. >> thanks, marg wet. >> warner: so is it fair to say first of all that the court's decision to hear these first two cases in itself a momentous decision? >> absolutely. a number of gay rights organizations, particularly as if relates to the federal defense of marriage act have been working towards that point. and yes, whatever the court says, if it reaches the merits of these cases will be extremely important. >> warner: let's take them one by one, prop 8 in california first. remind us briefly of how what started out as a state issue ended am in the supreme court. >> the california supreme court a number of year its ago ruled that same sex marriages were constitu

they're taking up both doma and prop 8. i wonder where you think roberts fits into all this. >> based on some of the other decisions he has made, i don't think he is quite as conservative as some people think. i think taking up the doma case is really important because we really need to have the defense of marriage act struck down. marriage in the states is great. but at the end of the day, there is an awful lot of benefits that come from the federal tax code that people who get married need to enjoy if you're going to have a fair and equitable situation in society. so i think they made a big step forward here. and, you know, the court is a hard place to read. unfortunately, it's not like the election. well don't have nate silver to read every morning to tell us how it's going to turn out. but we'll all be watching closely. >> chris, there is a third issue that the justices haven't taken up yet, and that's an arizona law that bars some same-sex spouses from access to state benefits. where do we go on that? what happens to that issue? >> well, the arizona case is a case in wh

regarding federal laws, one regarding the defense of marriage act, or doma, involving couples legally married in their own state. the other is a challenge to california's prop 8, which took away the rates of same-sex marriage that had been previously approved by state courts. >>> the top story this hour, a man considered the leader of a terrorist network, now in custody in egypt. this is why we're paying attention to this man. u.s. officials believe his group had something to do with the attack in libya that killed the american ambassador and three other u.s. citizens. our national correspondent, susan candiotti is live for us. you have been working your sources. what do we know about this terror suspect and the group he leads? >> well, let's talk about him. the investigators have had this man on the radar for some time. and now he is being called a possible suspect in the benghazi attacks. muhammad ahmad was arrested, in custody while the investigation goes on. u.s. authorities believe he been involved in the september terror hit that killed ambassador chris stevens and three other a

could be the biggy. it could be very narrow. the doma case has a very straight forward question. is it constitutional for a federal law to say that the government will not recognize marriages even when they're legal in the states, so that if married couples get married in the nine states where it's now legal, the federal government doesn't recognize those marriages. there's a question about whether that's unconstitutional discrimination, but if the supreme court does strike down doma, it doesn't say anything about whether the states must permit same-sex marriage, it only says if they do, the federal government must recognize them. so it's the proposition 8 case from california that potentially raises the bigger question. now, as it comes to the supreme court, it comes in a very narrow way. the court of appeals, which agreed with the trial court, that proposition 8 striking down gay marriage in california was unconstitutional, it ruled in a very narrow way. it said california was wrong to grant the right and then take it away. you can't do that, apeeldz court said. if the supreme cou

obama administration said they will no longer defend doma. >> it took them awhile to get to that. >> it took the president awhile to come around on this issue. but john boehner and eric cantor have said they will continue to defend doma. from the house point of view. >> that's a real contentious thick thing. how about the second one? >> the second one, more surprising, is proposition 8, the california 2008 amendment that ended marriages, a few months earlier. that case in which the 9th circuit court of appeals had struck down the amendment is unconstitutional. the court said they are going to take that on. >> that's a much more direct challenge because the supreme court could decide the section 3 of doma is constructiontutional. with this case with prop something else 8, if they take the case on its merits and look at the constitutionalty of proposition 8, they are going to at least be looking at changing who can marry in calendar the next day and even more broad and make a decision that impacts other states that have marriage bans. >> bill: so this -- and just to point out, the attorne

of marriage act, or d doma, and another involving california's proposition 8, banning same-sex marriages in that state. for analysis into these historic cases, what's going to be a historic hearing, i want to bring in kinji yoshityoshito, professor of constitutional law at new york city. great to see you. >> good to see you. >> put prop 8 aside for a second. do you believe that the supreme court will strike down doma. this is what what you've said. walk me through your thinking on that one. >> y bet. so doma is a really narrow challenge insofar as what the statute does is it says for federal purposes marriages are defined between one man and one woman. so i think it might be best to clarify this by example. so you take edie windsor, a plaintiff coming out of new york who's going to be the plaintiff in this case. she was with another woman for 40 years. they got married in 2007. when her partner passed away, her wife passed away, for state purposes, in the eyes of new york state, she was next of kin. so her remains were released to edie. but for federal purposes, they were compl

, that will be overcome. >> the other case involves doma, defense of marriage act. what's at the heart of that question? >> not the fundamental right of same-sex marriage but whether the federal government can define marriage in a certain way, as between one man and one woman. historically that's been the job of the states to decide what marriage is, to define it. that really is the federal government stepping somewhere where it hasn't before. what they have done with that statute is say people can't have thousands of federal benefits. the case before the supreme court involves a woman who had to pay $363,000 in estate taxes she wouldn't have had to pay just because the person she was married to was the same gender as herself. it's fairness but limbed to that one state. >> patricia, always good to see you. thanks for weighing in. >> thank you. >> the deadline for the fiscal cliff is just over three weeks away. lawmakers are still mired in part in gridlock, each side saying the other is to blame. what do their constituents think? cnbc says 21% would blame the president, 23% blame republica

interesting question here. we don't know. the doma case doesn't invite the court to answer that question. it simple says if in those states that decide to grant same-sex marriage, which is up to the states, can the federal government still refuse to recognize those marriages? even if the supreme court strikes down the doma law, it won't say anything about whether a state has to allow same-sex marriage. on the prop 8 case it is possible to rule on that case very narrowly or broadly. let me explain. when the court of appeals said that prop 8 was unconstitutional, it said you can't do what california did. you can't give the right, which the california supreme court did, and then take it away, which prop 8 did. california's the only state that did that. if the supreme court barely upholds the court of appeals ruling, that would be good for california only. if the supreme court dives fully into in and gets into the basic constitutional question about whether states can block same-sex marriage, then, yes, they would get to it. they won't -- the mere fact they took up the case, we don't know whethe

. the high court agreed to hear two important cases, prop 8 out of california and doma out of new york. a federal court recently overturned prop 8 after the measure passed by voters. the court will decide if doma violates the fifth amendment of equal protection under the law that applies to same-section couples legally married in other states. >>> today is a very happy day for same-section couples in washington state. it is the first day they can marry under the new law, legalizing gay marriage. couples began lining up for licenses early thursday morning. some courthouses opened up at midnight for the ceremonies to take place. several local judges also donated their time to marry the couples. ceremonies are expected all day today. >>> last week, washington state became the latest state to legalize marijuana and now businesses there are jumping on the opportunity to create more revenue for themselves and the state. fox has the details. >> reporter: the sign is an invitation to come inside frankie's sports bar and light up a joint. in between pool shots, that's just what herald cald

all be equal by now. cheryl harris says "i think doma women get shut down quickly on solid legal grounds. prop 8 harder but kennedy will clear it up." >>> next the tug-of-war over the fiscal cliff. how much are democrats willing to give our entitlement cuts? we'll ask congressman elijah cummings that question. >>> the fight on capitol hill convinces a big powerball winner to claim his fortune now. you're watching "weekends with alex witt." [ woman ] ring. ring. progresso. in what world do potatoes, bacon and cheese add up to 100 calories? your world. ♪ [ whispers ] real bacon... creamy cheese... 100 calories... [ chef ] ma'am [ male announcer ] progresso. you gotta taste this soup. i tell them dentures are very different to real teeth. they're about 10 times softer and may have surface pores where bacteria can grow and multiply. polident is specifically designed to clean dentures daily. its unique micro-clean formula kills 99.9% of odor causing bacteria and helps dissolve stains, cleaning in a better way than brushing with toothpaste. that's why i recommend using polident. [ ma

stayed glue to their computer monitors all morning. >> either the prop eight or the doma. >> devoted to this. >> despite all of their research r search they did not expect that the supreme court would take up this case. >> we tend to believe that the supreme court is cautious and there are reasons they could have left the case alone. >> we were hoping that the supreme court wouldn't take the prop eight-case in which case, we could get married pretty soon, but it just means more waiting. >> we are pay -- paying our dues. we've been toyed with a little bit, yes, no, up down. i'm going to look at this as a better thing. >> back in 1996 when he was a san francisco supervisor. he cannot believe that gay marriage will be debated by the supreme court this had spring. >> especially for someone like me who's been around for a long time. this is a good thing because i was always laughed at and felt that it couldn't happen. > . >> we're very hopeful that had the decision will break in favor of allowing committed same sex couples. >> we will hear from the former mayor of san francisco, who shart --

moment, but you were the chief counsel for the democrats when they passed doma into law in 1996. i need to get your immediate reaction to the supreme court news this afternoon. >> well, i think it's very good for the advocates of marriage equality that the court took both of these issues up. the first issue is this question of the defense of marriage act. it was passed really in the middle of the night in 1996 and signed very reluctant lie by president clinton and e sin essentially says one state does not have to recognize the marriage equality rights another state may give. if you are married legally in the state of massachusetts and you happen to reside -- this is as a gay couple -- and you happen to reside in the state of california, the state of california does not need to recognize your massachusetts marriage, and as a result there are over 1,000 benefits that can be denied to a legally married gay couple if they happen to be living in a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage. my guess is the supreme court will declare that unconstitutional because there is a long tradition unde

possible outcomes. let's start with doma. if that is struck down by the high court, thewill that be thed of conservatives' attempts of outlawing gay marriage? >> it is the mother of all federal laws to try to outlaw. it will be over it it's overturned. if social conservatives try to get smart about this stuff, looking for opportunities to play defense instead of offense, doma, which is a terrible law in my estimation, was an attempt to completely play offense. you can't do this anywhere in any state. we're going to pre-empt you before you try. i think social cons are in a much better position when they say, look, let's make it so the government can't compel us to do things privately we don't want to do. i think you'll see much more emphasis placed on that. the question will be more than what will the supreme court try to do because they don't want to be out in front of public opinion too much. it's going to be fascinating. >> and they've rarely been accused of doing that either. david, let's move on to prop 8 in california. if that's struck down, does that mean same-sex marriage is

to read. a lot of different issues, a lot of interesting -- first of all we were saying doma seems to me like a slam dunk. i'm not as worried about it. i don't think legal scholars are as worried about it as prop 8. why are you giving me that blank stare? >> i really haven't read it. >> stephanie: where did you go to law school? >> i took a law class in college. we had to do briefs. >> stephanie: michael chairman in the "l.a. times," he said for the court to uphold doma in 2013 would be surprising. some sponsors of that law enacted 1996 defended it in blatantly moment faux mobic terms. that's our favorite game, being gay is just like -- >> being an alcoholic. >> stephanie: fill in the blank. >> a gay alcoholic. oh, my god. believe me yes, you can. [ laughter ] >> stephanie: don't be so judgmental. supreme court precedent forbids statutes to be rooted in animus or prejudice like doma was. justices aren't indifferent to public sentiment. that's the other reason people are thinking it is because of what happened at the ballot box. they're looking at the same polling we are. this is wh

health care and "the new york times" frank bruney weighs in on doma and cage for marriage equality when "now" starts in just three minutes. n't my daughs black bean soup spectacular? [ man thinking ] oh, this gas. those antacids aren't working. oh no, not that, not here! [ male announcer ] antacids don't relieve gas. gas-x is designed to relieve gas. gas-x. the gas xperts. gas-x is designed to relieve gas. when you lost the thing you can't believe you lost.. when what you just bought, just broke. or when you have a little trouble a long way from home... as an american express cardmember you can expect some help. but what you might not expect, is you can get all this with a prepaid card. spends like cash. feels like membership. ♪ but the fire is so delightful ♪ nothing melts away the cold like a hot, delicious bowl of chicken noodle soup from campbell's. ♪ let it snow, let it snow when you take a closer look... ...at the best schools in the world... ...you see they all have something very interesting in common. they have teachers... ...with a deeper knowledge of their subjects

the president tells them to say. >> i've heard from the justice department on doma and not with prop 8 and makes it all the more curious. >> the justice department has, again, had a leadership position on overturning the defensive marriage act but if you take the legal position they have advocated in the defensive marriage act cases and you apply it to a situation like proposition 8, all of those anti-gay laws go by the wayside and really a question of them taking the arguments they made in one case and making them again in this other case. >> i want to read from an associated press article on the fear and hope some have regarding gay marriage. gay marriage supporters see 41 reasons to fret over the supreme court's decision to take up the case of california's man on same sex issues and nine states allow partners to marry or will soon. 41 states do not. of those, 30 have written gay marriage bans into their state's constitution. >> i'm not that worried and the reason is because i think that the supreme court would have only taken these cases if they thought that they were ripe fo

. constitutional liberty and rights. the end of the doma act. how do you see this? >> one of the first things that usually comes to my mind when i think about prop 8 was that you had the people of california, they looked at having this particular law upheld as simply because they're the ones who wanted it to happen. and the courts there decided no forget about it. it's simply not going to happen. not only that but if you remember, the donors who were supporting this law, they had a lot of people come after them during that whole scenario. also remember, a lot of businesses who whether it be say wedding photographers, wedding deejays, bank gbank get hauls wo may not be catering to same-sex marriages, they have been attacked very often by lawsuits because they may not necessarily be catering to same-sex marriages. saw this over in new mexico with elaine photography when a photographer said i don't care to photograph same-sex marriage ended up being sued. this lawsuit is still going on right now. >> jimmy williams, welcome back. just explain to me. i'm sure there's a logic to it. i always